HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/14/07 Work SessionM I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall
February 14, 2007
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling,
Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She welcomed
everyone present and those watching at home. She displayed a plaque from First Place recognizing the
City’s contributions to Project Homeless Connect.
A. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue – City Hall Complex
City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Facility Project Manager Mike Penwell and Jonah Cohen of
Thomas Hacker Architects to discuss Phase 3 of the City Hall Complex Action Plan.
Mr. Penwell reviewed the history of the project to date, noting that the City Hall issue was established as a
council priority in February 2005 and the council adopted an action plan in May 2005 that outlined a four-
——
phase process. He said the first two phasespolicy advisement and development planhad been completed
and resulted in three concept plans. He said the next phase consisted of two components: Phase 3A and
Phase 3B.
Mr. Cohen reviewed the design team’s proposed scope of work and fees for Phase 3A, which included both
technical work and public involvement activities related to exploring financing and phasing options, bond
measure strategy work, ongoing police patrol facility planning, expanded concept design, five public
involvement meetings and related outreach activities. He noted the agenda packet included a proposed
budget for Phase 3A.
Ms. Taylor asked for specific details of the cost for community forums and a definition of “ward-based”
advisory meetings. Mr. Cohen said the cost of a community forum included not just the cost of a three-hour
meeting. In addition to the cost of the facility, food and personnel during the meeting there were also
extensive planning efforts to ensure the community forums were successful and follow-up tasks to document
and compile the results. He said the next round of forums would include a larger group of professionals
such as a sustainability consultant. He said the concept of ward-based meetings was to establish an
advisory committee of people representing all of the wards in the City, with the intent to have councilors
identify two or three individuals from each of their wards who would be generally supportive of the project,
actively involved in their wards and willing to commit to an ongoing involvement. He said the committee
was envisioned as meeting every six to eight weeks during the remaining project phases and involved in
ongoing project design development as another constituent group that would provide input. He also hoped
that committee members would become ambassadors to explain the project to community members.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 1
Work Session
Ms. Taylor stated that she had a recent conversation with Ada Lee, owner of the Rock ‘N Rodeo property,
who indicated she was unhappy that her property had been identified as a potential site and did not wish to
sell. She said that Ms. Lee was in Hawaii and ill during much of the planning activities and only received
notification after the council had voted to use her property. She felt the council should pause before
proceeding with City Hall plans.
Mr. Clark said he also had discussed the issue with Ms. Lee, who expressed the same concerns to him. He
asked what activities were included in the bond measure strategy work in Phase 3A. Mr. Cohen replied the
purpose was to understand what the public wanted and what might motivate them to support the project,
specifically to analyze past bond measures and conduct very detailed public opinion research through focus
groups and phone surveys. He said the intent was to determine public sentiment on a ward-by-ward basis.
Mayor Piercy pointed out that the earlier public forums had narrowed the list of potential sites and the
council indicated its preference, but no commitment had been made.
Mr. Penwell said he had spoken to Ms. Lee three times in the last several months, following the council’s
decision. He emphasized in those conversations that the process was underway and no decision on a site had
been made, although a decision would occur at some point in the future. He said he conveyed the message
that the City wished to work with willing sellers and was not interested in taking property.
Mayor Piercy asked if Ms. Lee and Lane County were the only property owners involved with the site. Mr.
Penwell said there were two other properties; he had spoken to one owner and the other property was
undergoing a change of ownership.
Mr. Pryor said that funds spent on a bond measure strategy should be for public information and feasibility
purposes, not advocacy. He asked what activities were included in the $226,000 budgeted for public
involvement tasks. He felt that an expenditure of that size should be well defined so the public would
perceive it as appropriate and justified. Mr. Cohen responded that the tasks were a continuation of work
begun in prior phases and included updating and continuing to maintain the website, responding to
comments, building a database of interested persons, conducting tours of the existing City Hall, facilitating
focus groups on a variety of topics, speakers bureau for neighborhood outreach, newsletters, flyers, media
outreach, facilitating community forums, developing a traveling exhibit for community events and providing
many hours of staff support. Dana Ing Crawford of Thomas Hacker Architects added that the intent was to
be everywhere, to respond to the council, and to not just inform but bring the broadest amount of involve-
ment to the project.
Referring to the project schedule, Mr. Zelenka asked why focus groups and polling activities occurred later
in the phase instead of at the beginning. He felt it would be better to ascertain public opinion earlier in the
process so the council would know if there was little likelihood that the project would have community
support. He was disappointed that Ms. Lee was not contacted before the council’s vote. Ms. Crawford
replied that the intent of focus groups and polling was to find out what people cared about rather than solicit
a “yes” or “no” response. She said indepth questions would determine what the community was interested in
with respect to downtown that would motivate people to support the project. Mr. Cohen added that polling
was an expensive process and a significant amount of research was required to obtain the data to inform the
polling process.
Mr. Zelenka felt there were a number of tasks that could occur after an assessment of public opinion. Mr.
Penwell said the issues were so complex and interrelated it was difficult to address them separately. He said
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 2
Work Session
polling only on the question of whether there was support for a bond measure would likely result in mostly
negative responses, whereas conducting enough research to develop options and pose thoughtful questions
would provide a more comprehensive assessment of public opinion and allow for adjustments accordingly.
Mr. Poling agreed that it was a good idea to conduct research before polling the public. He noted that at the
beginning of the process to narrow potential sites he had cautioned that it was important to contact property
owners and determine that there were willing sellers. He said the last council vote only indicated a site
preference and he had urged at the time that a second choice be identified as a backup plan if the first site
was not available.
Ms. Bettman remarked that the proposed resource needs in Phase 3A were different from the projected
resource needs in the action plan. Mr. Penwell said the plan was written two years ago and based on his
best estimates at the time.
Ms. Bettman stated she was disillusioned with the process and cynical about the success of a bond measure,
although she thought the consultants were doing a good job. She said that focus groups that contained only
cheerleaders for the project were a mistake and when people were polled they should be asked their opinions
about the City moving forward with a separate police facility when there had already been three failed bond
measures for that same plan. She said that probable vocal opposition within the community should be taken
into account and agreed with Mr. Zelenka’s suggestion to conduct polling at the beginning of the phase.
Ms. Ortiz expressed concern that the process would not have the desired outcome. She agreed with
separation of the police facility from City Hall and thought a police facility should be considered in an
entirely separate phase. She was interested in seeing the patrol function moved from downtown out into the
community. She said patrol did not need to be in downtown where property was the most expensive but did
need facilities that were clean and functional and she hoped that would move forward immediately on a
separate and parallel track. She was concerned that the City Hall project would not have the support of a
majority of the community.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed
with Phase 3A of Implementation Plan Phase of the City Hall Complex Action
Plan.
Mayor Piercy remarked that from the beginning of the process, the council had emphasized the importance
of a state-of-the-art outreach and community engagement initiative. She said it was always a challenge to
ask the public to pay for a public building, but the council had decided there was a need for a new city hall
and that was not the question that should be posed to the public. She said the question was what type of
building the community wanted and the entire effort was to find out what type of facility the public would be
willing to support.
Ms. Taylor said she would not vote in favor of proceeding as long as there was property with an unwilling
seller involved. She agreed partially with the need for a separate police facility, but that should include all
police functions.
Ms. Solomon urged the council to stay the course and even if the decision was not to pursue a bond
measure, at least the process would have been completed and information gathered that could be used in the
future. She said stopping now would mean that a future effort would have to start at the beginning and
represent a colossal waste of money. She did not personally support the preferred site and hoped there
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 3
Work Session
would be a backup plan for the current City Hall site, but would remain supportive of the project as a
whole. She agreed with Mayor Piercy that the question was not whether a new city hall should be built, and
she reminded the council that it was far more aware of problems with the existing building than the public
was. She felt that a bond measure could be in jeopardy if the City did not fix potholes first and hoped that
the council would support whatever recommendations the subcommittee dealing with transportation system
financing brought forth.
Ms. Ortiz indicated she would support the motion. She said that during the council’s Community
Committee on Race meetings, the subject of a cultural center was frequently raised, with communities of
color expressing a desire for a place to hold events.
Ms. Bettman agreed that the current City Hall needed to be replaced and City services, now scattered in
various places, should be consolidated into one building, but that should include police services. She would
vote against the motion.
Mr. Zelenka liked the current course and agreed with the need for a new city hall. He commended
consultants for a very effective and innovative public involvement process. He said he still preferred to have
polling occur earlier in Phase 3A, although that did not mean it would stop at that point; it could better
inform and direct activities through the remainder of the phase, including more aggressive public outreach.
Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to move the focus groups and polling ac-
tivities to the beginning of the process with a check back before proceeding with the
rest of Phase 3A.
City Manager Taylor said it appeared that Mr. Zelenka was asking for an assessment of the situation at the
beginning of the process to establish a baseline, but the design team preferred to develop more refined data
about issues that would inform the design concept. He said the more general polling requested by Mr.
Zelenka might be in addition to the tasks proposed in the scope of work.
Mr. Cohen said the proposed schedule was intended to be flexible and could accommodate Mr. Zelenka’s
amendment.
Mr. Zelenka said his amendment would change the schedule and was substantially different than the focus
groups and polling activities originally proposed. He wanted those activities to remain but tasks added to
obtain a snapshot of current strengths and weaknesses and political issues at the beginning of the process.
Ms. Ortiz accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Pryor as second accepted the
friendly amendment if the intent was understood to be the addition of supplemental
polling activities to the scope of work at the beginning of Phase 3A as preliminary
research, not shifting those activities from elsewhere in the phase. Mr. Zelenka
agreed that was his intent.
Mr. Clark echoed Ms. Solomon’s remarks. He said it was wise to proceed with good planning, but he could
not support any next steps with the City Hall until the backlog of road maintenance had been addressed as a
much higher priority item. He agreed with Mr. Zelenka that it was appropriate to consider the larger
political spectrum of the County and assess public opinion with regard to the City Hall project.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 4
Work Session
The motion as amended passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposi-
tion.
B. WORK SESSION: Lane County Local Government boundary commission
City Manager Taylor introduced Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter to discuss Senate Bill (SB) 417 related to the
Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission.
Mr. Yeiter stated that SB 417 was introduced by Senator Walker and representatives Barnhart and
Edwards. He said the boundary commission was a State agency with seven members appointed by the
governor and it was the last one in Oregon. He said that abolishing the boundary commission would shift
annexation requests to a different section of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). He said that annexation of
noncontiguous properties would no longer be allowed, although the City might be able to pursue annexations
if they touched other noncontiguous pieces of City property. He said that annexation of vacant property that
the owner wanted to develop would no longer be allowed if the property did not touch another part of the
City.
Mr. Yeiter said the City would assume responsibility for 25 to 35 annexations annually if the boundary
commission was eliminated and a public hearing before the council would be required for each annexation.
He said the Board of County Commissioners would assume responsibility for boundary changes and
creation of special districts such as water districts, fire districts, park districts, library districts and public
safety districts. He said elimination of the boundary commission would also mean there would be no
independent review of water or wastewater extensions outside of the city limits. He said that staff
recommended continued support of the boundary commission by opposing SB 417 as a Priority 1.
Mr. Clark said he was in favor of dealing with annexation issues in a transparent and accountable way, and
he was somewhat concerned that the existence of the boundary commission removed some accountability
from the process. He thought it was appropriate that the council should be accountable to the people for
annexations. He asked for clarification of the issues surrounding noncontiguous annexation.
Mr. Yeiter said the issue primarily related to the River Road and Santa Clara areas because of the
development pattern that had occurred there. He said the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area
Plan (Metro Plan) policies suggested that new development occur within city limits as cities were deemed to
be the logical providers of services. He said that annexations were entertained on a voluntary basis at the
request of the property owner and boundary commission law allowed noncontiguous annexations. He said
in other jurisdictions a technique called “cherry-stemming” was used to run pieces of the city out to touch a
property through street annexations. He said if Eugene lost the ability to do noncontiguous annexations,
questions would arise about the City’s intent for vacant property not near a piece of the city.
Mr. Clark asked if property could be developed under County standards. Mr. Yeiter replied that City and
County standards were virtually identical and the City regulated the development permit process for the
County.
Mr. Clark asked if SB 417 would result in any major changes to current procedures. Mr. Yeiter said the
biggest change would affect someone who wished to build a house on a piece of property not adjacent to city
property and how that situation would be handled. City Attorney Jerome Lidz added that the Metro Plan
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 5
Work Session
required all new urban development to be on properties annexed to the City and, if the property could not be
annexed, it also could not be developed.
Mr. Clark asked if that would affect the City’s inventory of buildable lands or create a Measure 37 claim.
Mr. Lidz replied that he did not think there would be a Measure 37 claim and he would research the question
of buildable lands. He said that regardless of which authority approved an annexation, it had to meet a
standard of reasonableness and that would apply to practices such as cherry-stemming.
Ms. Taylor stated that many problems had been caused by noncontiguous annexations and when property
changed hands, people did not know whether they were in the City or the County. She was in favor of
eliminating noncontiguous annexation. She asked if the County could decide to create a special district,
such as a library district that would include the City, if there was no boundary commission. Boundary
commission Executive Officer Paula Taylor replied that under current Oregon law, cities could not be
included in new taxing districts without their consent, although legislative changes might modify the rules
for county public safety service districts. Mr. Lidz said the County could approve formation of a district or
a city as long as it did not include part of the City of Eugene.
Ms. Taylor observed that the impetus for abolishing the boundary commission came from local legislators
and the County was in support of the legislation. She would not vote to oppose SB 417 but might support a
neutral position. She thought the more transparent and responsive government was the better and the City
Council was better known to citizens than the boundary commission. She felt the council would be able to
manage the additional work of annexation hearings.
Ms. Bettman was concerned with the staff recommendation to oppose SB 417 as a Priority 1 as that meant
the City would use its most aggressive lobbying efforts to oppose the bill when sponsors were local
legislators. She preferred a neutral position to one that was adversarial to the local legislative caucus. She
did not feel there were enough benefits to the boundary commission to compel the City to fight for its
retention.
Ms. Bettman said SB 417 also raised the issue of home rule, as the boundary commission was an entity
appointed by the governor and local elected officials had no voice in those decisions; that was counter to the
City’s legislative posture. She intended to propose an amendment to support the legislation.
In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Yeiter said currently there were restrictions by Metro Plan
policies and other regulations on extending utilities such as water and wastewater lines outside the city
limits, with some exceptions for health and safety reasons that required a permit from the boundary
commission. He said if there was no boundary commission, there would be no other regulatory authority to
review those issues and provide oversight.
Ms. Solomon foresaw a day when all of River Road and Santa Clara were annexed to the City of Eugene
and everyone was on the same water and wastewater systems and subject to the same regulations. The City
would benefit from taxpayer dollars for the services those residents enjoyed by living so close to the City.
She was interested in annexation and reluctant to add another layer to the process through the boundary
commission, but was concerned about noncontiguous properties. She asked if owners of noncontiguous
properties could still voluntarily annex to the City if the boundary commission was abolished. Mr. Yeiter
replied that if nothing else changed with respect to the Metro Plan or regulations, the property would have to
be contiguous to some piece of City property in order to be annexed.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 6
Work Session
City Manager Taylor said that annexation of noncontiguous property could only occur if it was adjacent to
an already annexed noncontiguous portion of the City. He said Resolution No. 4903 adopted by the council
on February 12 established procedures for approving those types of annexations.
Ms. Solomon asked if legislators introduced SB 417 on behalf of residents in unannexed areas. She asked if
the bill sponsors would be willing to amend the bill to provide greater flexibility on the issue of noncontigu-
ous annexations. City Manager Taylor said that most discussions leading to the legislation were from the
perspective of making annexations to the City of Eugene from the River Road and Santa Clara areas more
difficult. Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson said that the bill’s sponsors were unlikely to
agree to an amendment as they were opposed to annexation.
Ms. Solomon opined that it was unfortunate legislators did not realize the impact of SB 417 on the City of
Eugene.
Mayor Piercy clarified that she had received a call from Senator Walker to discuss SB 417.
Mr. Pryor observed that the issue was not about the boundary commission; it was about annexation
strategy. He said the council would need to decide whether it was willing to surrender the City’s current
annexation strategy by abolishing the boundary commission and develop another approach. He said in order
to endorse the City’s current annexation strategy, which included noncontiguous annexations, the council
would need to support the boundary commission. He said that supporting SB 417 meant the City would
need to develop another annexation strategy, which would be a challenging task. He was not certain he was
willing to entirely redesign the City’s annexation strategy and would likely support the boundary commis-
sion for that reason.
Mr. Zelenka asked what impact abolishing the boundary commission would have on City resources. City
Manager Taylor said the City currently paid $38,000 annually for boundary commission services and the
cost of having City staff perform those tasks would probably be somewhat higher. He said that was not as
great a concern as the impact on annexations. He said given the City’s transition plan, the net result would
be a halt to annexation of noncontiguous properties; the agreement to not annex rights-of-way would make
the orderly transition to urban development even more difficult.
Mr. Zelenka echoed Mr. Pryor’s remarks as the discussion had convinced him of the need to oppose the
legislation on a Priority 1 basis. He felt the City was on the right path with its annexation policy and he was
unwilling to start over again if the boundary commission was abolished.
Ms. Ortiz said the bill was proposed because there was a problem with annexations. She said there was no
face to the boundary commission, which was an anonymous group appointed by the governor. She, as an
elected official, had difficulty obtaining any information about the commission and could imagine how hard
it was for her constituents. She thought the council should go to the voters and ask them when they wanted
to be annexed and if they were opposed, the process should be stopped. She said the independent spirit in
River Road and Santa Clara needed to be respected and she was not willing to oppose the legislation. She
said the council was accountable to the voters and people expressed their opinions through voting; if people
were upset about being annexed it would make it difficult for the City to get ballot measures approved.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to remain
neutral on Senate Bill 417.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 7
Work Session
Mr. Clark agreed that the current annexation strategy was not working well because of the tension it had
created in the community. He was not opposed to abolishing the boundary commission, as it created a more
direct and accountable way to address the issue. He thought it was a good thing to offer those who were not
City residents an opportunity to have a voice at the table by becoming residents, but the political reality was
that the bill would pass and be enacted. He said the City could better spend its time developing a more
inclusive strategy.
Regarding the council’s adoption of Resolution No. 4903, Mr. Clark said if abolishing the boundary
commission changed the strategy for noncontiguous annexations, then the City must retain the ability to
annex streets in order to be able to successfully annex the willing. City Manager Taylor replied that the
resolution did not preclude that; it prohibited use of the annexation of right-of-way to create a wholly
surrounded island that then could be annexed without the agreement of the property owner.
Mr. Clark said the council often discussed the rights of City residents and the rights of County residents, but
seldom spoke of the responsibilities. He noted that people who lived nearby and enjoyed benefits the City
provided did not contribute financially to events like Project Homeless Connect. He said there were close-in
County residents who had a duty to participate in the City of Eugene’s responsibilities.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to direct the
City Manager to support Senate Bill 417 as a Priority 1.
Ms. Bettman stated the bill did not stop annexations; it just increased elected officials’ accountability for
decision-making around annexations. She said it would provide a more respectful annexation policy as
opposed to an aggressive and adversarial one. She said the discussion had focused on the opponents’
perspective that the bill was about annexation instead of the proponents’ perspective that it was about
accountability.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to extend the time by 10 minutes. The
motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Taylor said the bill would pass and it was important to maintain a good relationship with its sponsors.
She had lobbied against similar legislation during the last session and sponsors of that bill had given the City
one year to show why the boundary commission should remain. She did not think that had happened and she
would support the substitute motion.
Mr. Poling echoed comments from Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Clark. He could not
support the amended motion and favored the staff recommendation to oppose the bill.
Mr. Zelenka indicated he was not certain how the situation would be improved by abolishing the boundary
commission, particularly if there was no opportunity to amend the legislation to address noncontiguous
annexations.
Mr. Pryor stated he did not believe in forced annexations and was not interested in doing that. He did not
want to lose investments in infrastructure and strategies. He would not support the amendment but would
consider supporting a neutral position.
The motion to amend by substituting support for Senate Bill 417 as a Priority 1
failed, 5:3; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 8
Work Session
Mr. Poling moved to oppose Senate Bill 417 at a Priority 1 level. The motion died
for lack of a second.
The main motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Poling voting in opposition.
The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 9
Work Session